On Native GroundTHE Nexus of Climate ...

On Native GroundTHE Nexus of Climate Change and War

There are 39 comments on the American Reporter story from Oct 4, 2011, titled On Native GroundTHE Nexus of Climate Change and War. In it, American Reporter reports that:

There is virtually no doubt that global warming exists. Aside from a few cranks and those heavily invested in the fossil fuel industry, the scientific consensus is that the Earth's climate is changing, and changing faster than ever before.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at American Reporter.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Nohandle

Westland, MI

#21 Oct 21, 2011
Climate science is in it's infancy. We do not really understand the affect of the sun on our global climate and cannot say with any certainty that it isn't the cause of our current warmer period or our current decade long not warmer period.

Climate science is in it's infancy and while some of the support science is black and white physics, the reality is that we have an infinitely complex global climate environment and it is arrogant to study it for a couple of decades and annouce that the results have created an understanding.
SpaceBlues

United States

#22 Oct 21, 2011
Nohandle wrote:
.. infancy. We do not really understand the affect
..
Affect?

http://www.google.com/imgres...
SpaceBlues

United States

#23 Oct 21, 2011
Nohandle wrote:
.. infancy and .. science is black and white physics,..the results have created an understanding.
Ahhh understanding?

http://www.google.com/imgres...

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#24 Oct 21, 2011
Nohandle wrote:
Climate science is in it's infancy. We do not really understand the affect of the sun on our global climate and cannot say with any certainty that it isn't the cause of our current warmer period or our current decade long not warmer period.
Climate science is in it's infancy and while some of the support science is black and white physics, the reality is that we have an infinitely complex global climate environment and it is arrogant to study it for a couple of decades and annouce that the results have created an understanding.
It's true, climate science is certainly in its infancy, still at the crawling stage of its life, as yet to take its first baby step and utter its first intelligible word.
I Know More Than You

Concord, NH

#25 Oct 21, 2011
NoBrain wrote:
I can't recall any global-warming skeptic claiming that "urban heat islands" were causing global warming -- only that they were causing perceived global warming by surrounding established measuring stations. It takes little imagination to believe that a meteorological station that was located in a cow pasture and is now in a Wal-Mart parking lot is going to think the world has heated up. This strikes me as a dishonest effort to counter one argument by conclusively disproving another -- different -- argument.
The most significant contribution of heat islands to global warming statistics is their increasing proximity to measuring stations, many of which have been engulfed by growing urban areas.
This has been debunked yet again by the yet another study:

http://berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Berkeley_E...

"Global warming is real, according to a major study released today. Despite issues raised by climate change skeptics, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study finds reliable evidence of a rise in the average world land temperature of approximately 1° C since the mid-1950s."

It goes on to demolish the "heat island" issue that deniers constantly bring up, no matter what the facts are.

Even more ironic is that the study was funded in part by Koch foundation and contains two climate change skeptics.

Maybe the Koch brothers should have stuck with with Willie Soon as it's clear he's once scientist who can be bought.
Refomereducator

Danby, VT

#26 Oct 21, 2011
I Know More Than You wrote:
<quoted text>
This has been debunked yet again by the yet another study:
http://berkeleyearth.org/Resources/Berkeley_E...
"Global warming is real, according to a major study released today. Despite issues raised by climate change skeptics, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study finds reliable evidence of a rise in the average world land temperature of approximately 1° C since the mid-1950s."
It goes on to demolish the "heat island" issue that deniers constantly bring up, no matter what the facts are.
Even more ironic is that the study was funded in part by Koch foundation and contains two climate change skeptics.
Maybe the Koch brothers should have stuck with with Willie Soon as it's clear he's once scientist who can be bought.
You apparently missed the entire discussion. The point was that skeptics were never saying that urban heat islands were causing global warming ...they were suggesting that it was causing the temperature data in certain locations to be unreliable.

The study you cite has nothing to do with what the AGW critics have been saying. Kind of a strawman attack on the AGW critics.
Refomer

Danby, VT

#27 Oct 21, 2011
Physicist Richard Muller has a piece in today’s Wall Street Journal that should be read by everyone (The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism).

Muller concedes—in public—what many skeptics have claimed for years: that our temperature record is poor, especially over the oceans, that it is limited, filled with errors and biases, and when used as a basis for judgment, leads to over-certainty.

The temperature-station quality is largely awful. The most important stations in the U.S. are included in the Department of Energy’s Historical Climatology Network. A careful survey of these stations by a team led by meteorologist Anthony Watts showed that 70% of these stations have such poor siting that, by the U.S. government’s own measure, they result in temperature uncertainties of between two and five degrees Celsius or more. We do not know how much worse are the stations in the developing world.

Using data from all these poor stations, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates an average global 0.64oC temperature rise in the past 50 years,“most” of which the IPCC says is due to humans. Yet the margin of error for the stations is at least three times larger than the estimated warming.[link mine]
Refomer

Danby, VT

#28 Oct 21, 2011
Even more delightfully, Muller admits that it has not been growing stormier (sorry, Big Al):

The number of named hurricanes has been on the rise for years, but that’s in part a result of better detection technologies (satellites and buoys) that find storms in remote regions. The number of hurricanes hitting the U.S., even more intense Category 4 and 5 storms, has been gradually decreasing since 1850. The number of detected tornadoes has been increasing, possibly because radar technology has improved, but the number that touch down and cause damage has been decreasing. Meanwhile, the short-term variability in U.S. surface temperatures has been decreasing since 1800, suggesting a more stable climate.
Refomer

Danby, VT

#29 Oct 21, 2011
Nevertheless, the Berkeley project he led—which brought together physicists and (finally!) statisticians—were able to perform a complete re-analysis of all the temperature data, this time taking the main statistical statistical criticisms into account. Let’s leave aside whether these analyses were complete, rigorous, or recommended. Assume that they were. The findings?

We discovered that about one-third of the world’s temperature stations have recorded cooling temperatures, and about two-thirds have recorded warming. The two-to-one ratio reflects global warming. The changes at the locations that showed warming were typically between 1-2oC, much greater than the IPCC’s average of 0.64oC.

His conclusion is that “Global warming is real.” He hopes that “Perhaps our results will help cool this portion of the climate debate.”

But this blog, and all of the scientists who are critics, have agreed with this conclusion since this beginning. There simply is no debate on this question. There are no tempers to cool.

There has been, and still is, a vigorous disputation on the size of the warming and our confidence on this magnitude of warming. And Muller forgets that there has been a much more contentious argumentation about why the temperature has increased (in some places and cooled in others).

Just one thing about the first point of contention. If you look, say, at the year 1945 and compare it to the year 2010, you find warming of a certain size. But if you begin at 1940, just five years earlier, you find much less warming. Temperature increases (or decreases) are always relative to something (this is a point of logic, not physics). The choice of the comparator is arbitrary and subjective. Because of this, it is possible, and it has oft occurred, that someone wanting to stress the size of the increase will choose a comparator that best makes his case. Muller doesn’t state in his editorial what his comparator is; or why he has chosen just one.
I Know More Than You

Concord, NH

#30 Oct 21, 2011
Refomereducator wrote:
<quoted text>
You apparently missed the entire discussion. The point was that skeptics were never saying that urban heat islands were causing global warming ...they were suggesting that it was causing the temperature data in certain locations to be unreliable.
The study you cite has nothing to do with what the AGW critics have been saying. Kind of a strawman attack on the AGW critics.
You need to have an adult read what I wrote to you slowly, using small words so you understand.
Nohandle

Westland, MI

#31 Oct 21, 2011
I Know More Than You wrote:
<quoted text>
You need to have an adult read what I wrote to you slowly, using small words so you understand.
The Berkley study says that the heat island effect is local and real. How is that debunking what has been said before ...which is....drum roll....that the measurement of temperature has been not taken into account heat islands. No one ever claimed that the heat islands were causing climate change.

I know you have trouble understanding differences as big as this but if you read the entire thread slowly a few times you might get it.
SpaceBlues

United States

#32 Oct 21, 2011
Nohandle wrote:
<quoted text>
The Berkley study says that the heat island effect is local and real. How is that debunking what has been said before ...which is....drum roll....that the measurement of temperature has been not taken into account heat islands. No one ever claimed that the heat islands were causing climate change.
I know you have trouble understanding differences as big as this but if you read the entire thread slowly a few times you might get it.
You are arguing with yourself. No one..etc.

Try to calm down and read this carefully:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment...
NobodyYouKnow

Toronto, Canada

#33 Oct 21, 2011
Refomereducator wrote:
<quoted text>
You apparently missed the entire discussion. The point was that skeptics were never saying that urban heat islands were causing global warming
True but deliberately misleading. The claim was that the UHI was causing a 'systematic bias'. This is total crap and the methodology of the bias rejection has been studied and validated. In fact, they did a study to see what would be the bias from the UHI if they didn't carefully reject it. The study showed that the UHI (totally UNcorrected) could not produce more than 0.1C of warming in the final product.

This is actually mostly due to the fact that the UHI is very concentrated in population centers while the global gridding of temperature averages sets the weight of each accepted instrument by the 'area of exclusive coverage'. So the instruments affected by the UHI have very small weighting in a 100km by 100km grid element.
Refomereducator wrote:
<quoted text>
...they were suggesting that it was causing the temperature data in certain locations to be unreliable.
Bogus. The temperature would have a UHI trend added on that had to be extracted by comparison to surrounding rural area temperatures but it was in no way 'unreliable'.
Refomereducator wrote:
<quoted text>
The study you cite has nothing to do with what the AGW critics have been saying. Kind of a strawman attack on the AGW critics.
The study validates all of the methodology used to derive the global average surface temperatures. The scientists, skeptics all, were paid by the Koch Brothers to try to show one of the critiques used by the denialists was valid. However, the honests scientists had to admit in the end that NONE of the 'critisms' voice by the denial camp had any scientific underpinnings.

"This confirms that these studies were done carefully and that potential biases identified by climate change sceptics did not seriously affect their conclusions."
Nohandle

Westland, MI

#34 Oct 21, 2011
NobodyYouKnow wrote:
<quoted text>
True but deliberately misleading. The claim was that the UHI was causing a 'systematic bias'. This is total crap and the methodology of the bias rejection has been studied and validated. In fact, they did a study to see what would be the bias from the UHI if they didn't carefully reject it. The study showed that the UHI (totally UNcorrected) could not produce more than 0.1C of warming in the final product.
This is actually mostly due to the fact that the UHI is very concentrated in population centers while the global gridding of temperature averages sets the weight of each accepted instrument by the 'area of exclusive coverage'. So the instruments affected by the UHI have very small weighting in a 100km by 100km grid element.
<quoted text>
Bogus. The temperature would have a UHI trend added on that had to be extracted by comparison to surrounding rural area temperatures but it was in no way 'unreliable'.
<quoted text>
The study validates all of the methodology used to derive the global average surface temperatures. The scientists, skeptics all, were paid by the Koch Brothers to try to show one of the critiques used by the denialists was valid. However, the honests scientists had to admit in the end that NONE of the 'critisms' voice by the denial camp had any scientific underpinnings.
"This confirms that these studies were done carefully and that potential biases identified by climate change sceptics did not seriously affect their conclusions."
The conclusion they want to pin on them wasn't what they were saying to begin with. Why is that so hard to understand. The Berkley study chose to say it was refuting a criticism that wasn't really on the table to begin with. Read above.

I have seen the quality of the urban island data challenged before many times. I have never seen it used as conclusory challenge to global warming. Just a challenge to the quality of the science. And that, even by the Berkley study, is still true.
Alex

Newton Center, MA

#35 Oct 21, 2011
Alex wrote:
The scientists at CERN are supposed to be tops in the world-
'CERN: Sun, not man, controls Earth’s climate' August 30, 2011
http://www.infowars.com/cern-sun-not-man-cont...
'CERN Scientists Gagged On ‘Politically Incorrect’ Global Warming Data'
http://www.infowars.com/cern-scientists-gagge...
video- Solar Activity & Alignmment Role in Quakes, Weather And Animal Behavior http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =tyG8HT9XX
-besides the Proven climate changer known as the SUN there's also some blame for the 'weird weather' on the other factors not mentioned- the weather phenomenons of La Nińa and El Nińo - http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp=kjrmc...

Where all the 'warmth' is really coming from-
http://fellowshipofminds.files.wordpress.com/...
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_LD_Ah5tLKV8/Sxk7MaC...

The phenomenon of La Erog-
http://www.google.com/search...
NobodyYouKnow

Toronto, Canada

#36 Oct 22, 2011
Alex wrote:
<quoted text>
"'CERN: Sun, not man, controls Earth’s climate' August 30, 2011"
Same sh*t, different day.

Fact is that the CERN study did nothing to make the claim that the NEWS BLOG trumpted. It took a serious study that in NO way challenged AGW theory and made their OWN unsupported conclusions.

"Early results seem to indicate that cosmic rays do cause a change. The high-energy protons seemed to enhance the production of nanometre-sized particles from the gaseous atmosphere by more than a factor of ten. But, Kirkby adds, those particles are far too small to serve as seeds for clouds. "At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it's a very important first step," he says."

The results are interesting but do not provide enough data to produce ANY conclusion other than there are other factors missing in cloud formation dynamics.
NobodyYouKnow

Toronto, Canada

#37 Oct 22, 2011
Nohandle wrote:
<quoted text>
The Berkley study chose to say it was refuting a criticism that wasn't really on the table to begin with. Read above.
The Berkley scientists knew what the common criticisms of the established science were. They proved that those criticisms were unsubstantiated. What is so hard for YOU to understand?

They were not testing criticisms in the scientific literature. There WERE no peer reviewed papers trying to support the critisms of the 'denialist' camp. The peer reviewed science supported the validity of the EXISTING studies.

It was to counter the various claims of the coal and oil funded anti-science blogs that they were addressing. I.e. To see if any of those criticisms were valid. They tried to prove that they WERE so the bias would be towards confirmation and they COULD NOT DO IT.

Do you understand this simple fact yet?
Stardust

Westland, MI

#38 Oct 22, 2011
Bullshat

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain retreat, SE Spain

#39 Oct 23, 2011
LessFactMoreHype, alias:
NobodyYouEverWantToKnow wrote:
Same sh*t, different day.
A lot of it has spewed from your keyboard, Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty.
How did you manage to be an expert in so many subjects without learning that forty hasn't been correctly spelled with a U for over 200 years?
Or that ice sheets can calve massive amounts?
Or that Enercon don't have offshore wind generators, gearless or otherwise?
Or that the equator does have season/seasons?
Or that cars cannot be charged with road collisions?
Or that vikings knew how to live in a warmer Greenland?
Or that New Moore island couldn't have been, "in the MOUTH of the several rivers?"
Or that, "Deforestations [isn't] a consequence of AGW?"
Or that Alberta isn't a country?
Or that, "insects and plants" actually qualify as species?
Or that, "Scientific laws" are actually science?
Or that you aren't really, "bordering on being an intellectual?"
Or that predictions aren't just for astrologers?
Or that ethanol isn't, "a very workable and effective solutuion?"
Or that America has more than two political parties?
Or that 'fruiting plants' are not especially chosen by bees for, "polination?"
Or that CO2 isn't a, "thermal pollutant?"
Or that you don't score points by comparing AGW to the Holocaust.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Africa Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
hannfundses engelbrecht front natiomal party us... Dec 13 julis braun 1
AmeriKKKa created storm Irma to destroy poor is... Sep '17 Corrupt 1
China's organ harvesting Aug '17 Coco4u 1
Do the Hausa's have slimmer features than other... (Dec '16) Jul '17 Lander 2
Medicine for Africa' which can be made by ordi... (Aug '16) Mar '17 Ache 2
Can an African-American join an African tribe? (Jan '17) Jan '17 Anonymous 1
Mama hawah women clinic (Dec '16) Dec '16 Anonymous 1
More from around the web